Thursday, September 18, 2008

Watch Your Language

Scott is never one to mince words...
to my emergent, missional, incarnational friends

enough already.

the labels have become redundant. once upon a time we tried to start something that was free from such labelling, only to succumb ourselves. no one outside the cultic bubble even understands what you are talking about anymore. they care even less.

missional? what church believes it isn't missional? from baptists to buddhists, everyone on the religious bus believes they are touching their community. the term is meaningless and vague.

incarnational? know any english? i can just imagine you telling your neighbours your church is trying to be incarnational... imagine the blank stares. and again, what church is going to admit they are not trying to live christlike in their environs. isn't that kind of the point?

emegent? are you emergent or emerging? does it really matter? i thought you didn't like labels? i am floored the amount of time that is wasted defining and redefining the labels and dotting the i's.

seriously, get a real job.


Anonymous said...

Thank heavens. I'm glad someone said it, makes me crazy.

Thoughts From Jeff said...

so, tell me ... what do you think ?

the link and article from out of ur and christianity today was interesting ....

it should spark some convo

Jeff Nelson said...

I think he makes some good points.

Missional - every church in some sense tries to be missional, though to me it's my favorite and most useful term to come out of the emerging movement.

Incarnational - I doubt that anyone really approaches their neighbor and uses this term, but I'm someone who generally agrees that the words that Christians use "in house" won't make much sense to outsiders.

Emerging/Emergent - I've never been a huge fan of either for the exact issue that he raises. A label-less movement using labels to differentiate different camps within itself is ridiculous. Plus observers and critics get them confused anyway.